Speaker 1: From Powerline blog dot com and produced by Ricochet dot com.
Speaker 1: This is the power Line Show with your host Steve Hayward. Well,
Speaker 1: Hi everybody, and welcome to this special classic format edition
Speaker 1: of the podcast, which is prompted by the news headlines
Speaker 1: out the last few days that Israel's plans to launch
Speaker 1: an attack or strike on Iran in retaliation for a
Speaker 1: recent run in rocket attacks were leaked by the United
Speaker 1: States and perhaps some of our allies as well. Now
Speaker 1: I think it's possible the story is even worse than
Speaker 1: it sounds. It's bad enough that national security has been breached,
Speaker 1: but there may be something even more serious lurking in
Speaker 1: the background that we ought to start thinking about and
Speaker 1: talking about and investigating. And I'm going to introduce this
Speaker 1: line of inquiry in a roundabout way. This headline got
Speaker 1: me to thinking about one of the last books of
Speaker 1: my mentor M. Stanton Evans, whose biography, of course, I
Speaker 1: recently wrote, and one of his last books was called
Speaker 1: Stalin's Secret Agents, which he co authored with Herb Romerstein,
Speaker 1: someone I also knew slightly. He had been head of
Speaker 1: the House Intelligence Committee as a staffer, not as a congressman,
Speaker 1: and Stalin's secret agents took on an interesting thought, which was,
Speaker 1: you know, all the spy stories of the forties and
Speaker 1: into the fifties, and McCarthyism and all the rest. In
Speaker 1: the alger Hiss case, for example, we're mostly about well, gosh,
Speaker 1: were they giving secrets away to the Soviet Union? But
Speaker 1: Stan and Herb got to thinking, I wonder if this
Speaker 1: problem is more serious than that. And in fact, if
Speaker 1: you look closely, maybe all the Soviet agents and Soviet
Speaker 1: sympathizers and the useful idiots who sympathize with communism, who
Speaker 1: were embedded in high positions in our government, many more
Speaker 1: than we ever knew about and may ever learn about,
Speaker 1: might have had a significant effect on policy and key
Speaker 1: decisions in World War two, and just after that went
Speaker 1: a long way towards shaping the Cold War that happened
Speaker 1: after World War Two. So what I want to do
Speaker 1: is share with you a lecture that Stan gave about
Speaker 1: this subject about twenty years ago now, and I think
Speaker 1: you'll pick up where I'm going with this, and after
Speaker 1: it's over, I will come back with a few comments
Speaker 1: of my own, and then you can take the story
Speaker 1: from there. So without further Ado here's m Stanton Evans
Speaker 1: at the Philadelphia Society from around about I think two
Speaker 1: thousand and three, and we'll just pick it up in
Speaker 1: the middle.
Speaker 2: Now, what I am going to talk about here in
Speaker 2: the next three hours is not Owen Lanimore but or
Speaker 2: Joe McCarthy even, but the generic problem that Owen Latimer represented,
Speaker 2: Joe McCarthy was addressing, but went way beyond the McCarthy era,
Speaker 2: both preceding it and following it. And this is something
Speaker 2: that evolved out of my research that is now becoming
Speaker 2: a project of the Education and Research Institute, which is
Speaker 2: our little five O one seat three, which we're collecting
Speaker 2: data on these problems, not only the FBI files, which
Speaker 2: are immense, but the Venona papers, which are the decryptions
Speaker 2: of the Soviet messages to their agents in America back
Speaker 2: in the forties, that the FBI had in its possession
Speaker 2: for many years. Also the archives of the State Department,
Speaker 2: of the Office of Strategic Services, the Office of War Information,
Speaker 2: other agencies back in the forties and fifties, all the
Speaker 2: which are now available under the rules of the Archives
Speaker 2: and also under the rules of the Senate. The Congress
Speaker 2: is the fifty eurou for the Senate, for example. All
Speaker 2: this material is now coming online and can be obtained
Speaker 2: if you want to look at it. Is what we're doing.
Speaker 2: So we have been assembling this stuff and sorting it
Speaker 2: out and trying to figure out what does it tell us?
Speaker 2: And the answer is another of my laws. Lee does
Speaker 2: not mention Evans law of inadequate paranoia, which says, no
Speaker 2: matter how bad you think something is, when you look
Speaker 2: into it, it's always worse. And this stuff is amazing
Speaker 2: the record that's there. And I can tell you that
Speaker 2: based on the information we now have, I say we generically,
Speaker 2: not just us, but other people doing this. The histories
Speaker 2: that we have of the Cold War, most of them
Speaker 2: can be thrown out. They're just wrong, they're inaccurate, frequently
Speaker 2: disinformation really, and the true history that era remains to
Speaker 2: be written. And again thinking about the young folks here,
Speaker 2: that there are a one hundred books or more waiting
Speaker 2: to be written based on this material of what actually
Speaker 2: happened in the nineteen forties and nineteen fifties in our
Speaker 2: government and the consequences thereof. What this material shows in
Speaker 2: a nutshell is that there was massive, truly massive infiltration
Speaker 2: of our government by communists, fellow travelers, and Soviet agents,
Speaker 2: beginning in the nineteen thirties, but then intensifying in the
Speaker 2: nineteen forties, particularly during World War Two, when the Soviet
Speaker 2: Union was our ally and hundreds of communists and Soviet
Speaker 2: agents were in our government, and perhaps thousands, although there's
Speaker 2: no way of telling it because a lot of them,
Speaker 2: A lot of the information is not yet available, and
Speaker 2: some of it, some of it was never obtained to
Speaker 2: begin with. However, early on the FBI got on the
Speaker 2: trail of these people, and based on surveillance, based on
Speaker 2: tips from informers, and then ultimately based on the revelations
Speaker 2: of Elizabeth Bentley, who was probably the most important single
Speaker 2: witness of this era, got after these communists in the
Speaker 2: government and wire tapped them, open their mail, conducted intensive
Speaker 2: personal surveillance, did everything in the world to follow and
Speaker 2: track them around, and violated their civil liberties to the max,
Speaker 2: which I'd like to say was the good old days.
Speaker 2: That's that's that's the way you should deal with communists.
Speaker 2: I came to the conclusion some years ago that having
Speaker 2: communists in your government is not good. It is not
Speaker 2: a good thing, and the reason for that is not
Speaker 2: because of their theoretical beliefs, but because they were, and
Speaker 2: to extend they're still around, are agents of a hostile
Speaker 2: foreign power, and probably therefore it should not be in
Speaker 2: our government. Maybe in their government, not our government. Let
Speaker 2: me give you just a couple of quick examples of
Speaker 2: why it isn't so good to have communists in your government,
Speaker 2: or as happened with the British and their government and
Speaker 2: many other governments, a couple of anecdotes from the year
Speaker 2: World War Two. I'm trying to do this very briefly.
Speaker 2: In nineteen forty three nineteen forty four in Yugoslavia, there
Speaker 2: was a contest between a communist faction headed by the
Speaker 2: man who took the Nome Daghea Tito, and an anti
Speaker 2: communist faction headed by a man named dra Mihailovich. In
Speaker 2: forty three early forty three, Radio Moscow began putting out
Speaker 2: the line that Mihailovich was a collaborator with the Nazis
Speaker 2: and a crater, and then only Tito was really leading
Speaker 2: the battle against the Nazis. This line was picked up
Speaker 2: by our own Office of War Information and by British
Speaker 2: Broadcasting Corporation, and reports began coming out of Cairo, which
Speaker 2: was the center for intelligence for the Mediterranean and the
Speaker 2: Balkans which were due north of there, that indeed Mahailovich
Speaker 2: was a trader and collaborator, and only Tito was fighting
Speaker 2: against the Nazis, and so forth and so on. That
Speaker 2: was then believed by the British ministries up to including
Speaker 2: Winston Churchill. They cut Mahailovich off, gave all the age
Speaker 2: to Tito, disowned Mahailovich, and when push came to shove,
Speaker 2: Tito was able to capture Mahalovich and kill him and
Speaker 2: take over Yugoslavia. Well. The central player in the Cairo
Speaker 2: intelligence set up for the British as a man named
Speaker 2: James Klaugman who was a Soviet agent who had been
Speaker 2: part of the phil Bey ring in Cambridge, and he
Speaker 2: was the one who was massaging these days and sending
Speaker 2: them back to London, and they were believed. In September
Speaker 2: forty three, our Office of Strategic Services parachuted a man
Speaker 2: into Yugoslavia, Captain Lynn Ferris, who began sending back exactly
Speaker 2: the same reports Mahilovich as a collaborator and trader working
Speaker 2: with the Nazis. Only Tito is leading the fight against Hitler,
Speaker 2: and our government made the same decision. We cut Mahalovich
Speaker 2: off and backed Tito, and that report was given to
Speaker 2: President Roosevelt from this Lynn Farrish on the eve of
Speaker 2: the Terror End Conference in November forty three, where Tito
Speaker 2: was anointed as the new leader of Yugoslavia. Well in
Speaker 2: the Venona papers, Lynn Ferrish shows up as a contact
Speaker 2: of the KGB, and there we find him a meeting
Speaker 2: with his controller from the KGB, we find a meeting
Speaker 2: with an another Soviet agent and receiving from them such contacts,
Speaker 2: this party line, which he then transmitted back to the
Speaker 2: OSS which then reached high as the White House itself,
Speaker 2: and President Roosevelt and so our government too wrote off
Speaker 2: Mihailovich and put its chips on Tito. The following year,
Speaker 2: in Chung King, China, nineteen forty four, the diplomat named
Speaker 2: John Stewart's Service was dispatched by our government to aid
Speaker 2: the then government of China under Chang Kai Chek and
Speaker 2: anti communists. John Stuart Service was living in a house
Speaker 2: in Chung King was not one but two Soviet agents.
Speaker 2: One was a man named Solomon Adverer who was then
Speaker 2: addessay of the Treasury Department. And another one was a
Speaker 2: man named Chi Chiao Ting who was acidic Chinese, who
Speaker 2: was a mole. And the government of Chang Kai Schek,
Speaker 2: so we had on our top diplomats in China is
Speaker 2: living with two case hardened Soviet agents. And this is
Speaker 2: all clear of the FBI records. And Invenona and he
Speaker 2: service and Saul Adler, the Treasury guy, are sending back
Speaker 2: a stream of reports to our government saying Shang Kai
Speaker 2: Shak is a collaborator and a trader. Chang Kai Shak
Speaker 2: is working with the Japanese. Chang Ky Check is doing nothing.
Speaker 2: Only the Chinese communists are resisting the Japanese. This is
Speaker 2: the message identical to the message that came out of
Speaker 2: Yugoslavia the year before. This information goes in the case
Speaker 2: of John Stuart's Service to the State Department, but also
Speaker 2: to this White House, to a men named Lauchlan Curry,
Speaker 2: who was a Soviet agent in the Treasury Department. In
Speaker 2: the case of sal Laddler goes to a man named
Speaker 2: Harry Dexter White, also a Soviet agent. These messages are
Speaker 2: then mutual confirming and the intelligence well, therefore Chang Kai
Speaker 2: Shek is a collaborator and treder, just as Mihalovich had been.
Speaker 2: We need to cut Chang Kai Shek off, stopped giving
Speaker 2: him any aid and put our chips on the Chinese
Speaker 2: threads that a non In the Treasury Department, we have
Speaker 2: the morgans Thaw diaries who was the Secretary of the
Speaker 2: Treasury at this time, in which Secretary Morgan Thaw is
Speaker 2: asking his age, why has not the aid that we
Speaker 2: promised Chang Kai Shek been sent forward? And the nationalist
Speaker 2: Chinese were complaining bitterly that they had not received this
Speaker 2: aid two hundred million dollar loaning. Gold and his staffers
Speaker 2: Harriet extra why a man named v front Co and
Speaker 2: Solomon Adler when he was back in the States, are
Speaker 2: explaining to Secretary Morganhaw why it is not feasible to
Speaker 2: get this aid to Chang Kai Scheck. Every person talking
Speaker 2: to Secretary Morgan Thaw in the Treasury conference where this
Speaker 2: is brought up is a Soviet agent. Three Soviet agents
Speaker 2: surrounding the surgery telling him why you should not advance
Speaker 2: aid to Chang Kayshak, and that aid was indeed cut
Speaker 2: off and further aid was cut off in the following
Speaker 2: year during the Marshall Mission to China, and that pretty
Speaker 2: well spelled curtains for tang Kaishak. This is why it
Speaker 2: is not good to have communists in your government. If
Speaker 2: you have communists in your government, things like that tend
Speaker 2: to happen. Now that's the history, and there's a hinge here.
Speaker 2: I'm going to bring this forward to the current day.
Speaker 2: There was a rationale for that time for having communists
Speaker 2: in the government, and many such pronouncements were made. Here
Speaker 2: was one that was handed down in December of nineteen
Speaker 2: forty four, covered at the time by Willard Edwards, the
Speaker 2: father of Lee Ewart, for the Chicago Tribune of the
Speaker 2: Watching Times Herald. This is an order headed down by
Speaker 2: the Adjutant General of the Army to the Army commanders.
Speaker 2: There had been a rule that communists should not have
Speaker 2: commissions in the army, and this order rescinded that rule
Speaker 2: and said quote, no action will be taken that is
Speaker 2: predicated on membership in or adherence to the doctrine of
Speaker 2: the Communist Party, unless there is a specific finding that
Speaker 2: the individual involved has a loyalty to the Communist Party,
Speaker 2: which outweighs his loyalty to the United States. Now imagine
Speaker 2: the mind Reading Act. His loyalty to Communism is about
Speaker 2: fifty one percent, and his loyalty to the United States
Speaker 2: is about forty nine percent. So I guess we should
Speaker 2: get him out of here. Well, this is impossible. Nobody
Speaker 2: can do that. This is blanche for having communists on
Speaker 2: the payroll, which they did, and they come Mason the
Speaker 2: Communists in the army, and this was indicative of what
Speaker 2: happened throughout the government. This doctrine is based on the
Speaker 2: notion that just theoretical adherence to the Communist Party is
Speaker 2: no big deal, or that mere advocacy of Communism is
Speaker 2: no big deal, that mere membership in the Communist Party
Speaker 2: is not a disqualification for government service. That became the
Speaker 2: established jurisprudence of the United States, starting in a court
Speaker 2: decision in nineteen forty three, the Schneiderman decision that it
Speaker 2: was dicked up, and then picked up later the Kyishian
Speaker 2: decision in sixty seven, a five for decisions written by
Speaker 2: William Brennan and then repeated in other decisions thereafter, which
Speaker 2: basically said that mere membership in the Communist Party, mere
Speaker 2: knowing membership in the Communist Party is not a disqualification
Speaker 2: for a government job or anything else. That doctrine became
Speaker 2: the standing rule of our government in the nineteen sixties
Speaker 2: seventies and resulted in the almost complete destruction of our
Speaker 2: internal security system. And if you read the hearings of
Speaker 2: this the Civil Service Commission, people were saying, we cannot
Speaker 2: even ask if somebody is a member of the Communist
Speaker 2: Party that is not permitted to be asked, You can't
Speaker 2: ask them, and many other indicators of the same the
Speaker 2: same thing. And in the seventies we saw the abolition
Speaker 2: of the House Committee on Our American Activities, of the
Speaker 2: Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations,
Speaker 2: the Subversive Activities Control Board, all of these wiped off
Speaker 2: the books in obedience to this doctrine. Also in the seventies,
Speaker 2: and this brings us now forward, were adopted to sets
Speaker 2: of rules governing the FBI the activities of the FBI
Speaker 2: what was called the Levy Guidelines, named for them Attorney
Speaker 2: General Edward Levy, which said basically that the FBI could
Speaker 2: not conduct surveillance or intrusive observation of any so called
Speaker 2: subversive group absence probable cause that a crime was about
Speaker 2: to be committed, and there was this overt act standard
Speaker 2: is then enshrine in these regulations so that they weren't
Speaker 2: allowed to follow KGB agents around, They weren't allowed to
Speaker 2: clip articles on groups like the Progressive Labor Party and
Speaker 2: keep files on them. All that was wiped out, and
Speaker 2: FBI had then Director William Webster, testified that as of
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy six seven, the FBI was out of the
Speaker 2: domestic security business, just out of it. They were not
Speaker 2: permitted to surveil any of these groups, and the number
Speaker 2: of such investigations dropped from about twenty two thousand twenty
Speaker 2: two thousand in nineteen seventy three to thirty eight three
Speaker 2: eight twenty two thousand to thirty eight in nineteen eighty two.
Speaker 2: That just totally wiped out the whole activity of the
Speaker 2: FBI and surveiling these groups, not just communist groups, but
Speaker 2: terrorist groups that were then becoming an increasing concern, the
Speaker 2: Weather Underground, the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee, Revolutionary Communist Party,
Speaker 2: and many others. Progressive Labor Party, They were not permitted
Speaker 2: to keep files on them, follow them, surveil them to anything.
Speaker 2: This stuff was then again enacted in nineteen seventy eight,
Speaker 2: and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act adopted the impetus of
Speaker 2: Senator Teddy Kennedy in the American Civil Liberties Union, in
Speaker 2: which it was stated that even in foreign intelligence, the
Speaker 2: other stuff was domestic, that there could not be any
Speaker 2: kind of intrusive measures absent of finding that a crime
Speaker 2: was being committed or about to be committed by the
Speaker 2: person who was to be surveilled. Fast forward again to
Speaker 2: August two thousand and one. In Minneapolis. In August of
Speaker 2: two thousand and one, the FBI arrested a man named
Speaker 2: Zacharias Musawi, who, by information received from French intelligence, was
Speaker 2: tied in without TITA, tied in with other terrorist jihattage
Speaker 2: terrorist organizations, and he addition, been taking flying lessons at
Speaker 2: an air school in Minneapolis, and the FBI agent there
Speaker 2: in charge of that, Colleen Rally, petitioned Washington, DC, headquarters
Speaker 2: of the FBI, for permission for a warrant to download
Speaker 2: his laptop computer and to search his personal effects in
Speaker 2: order to find out what this guy was up to.
Speaker 2: This is like August twenty first two thousand and one, denied.
Speaker 2: Cannot do it. Why there's no crime being committed. What
Speaker 2: crime is being committed. He's just taking flying lessons. He
Speaker 2: just belongs to his jihadist organization. That's not a crime.
Speaker 2: So it's denied. Well, this then, as we know, was
Speaker 2: preliminary to the attack of the World Trade Center and
Speaker 2: the Pentagon, the death of Free for the murder of
Speaker 2: three thousand people by the group to which Zachariisman salary
Speaker 2: was connected. That same attitude, and I'm almost out of
Speaker 2: time here pervades a good deal of our official activity
Speaker 2: reach to you from the guideline to the State Department,
Speaker 2: just prior to nine to eleven, which transpose all of
Speaker 2: this stuff from the Cold War to the terrorist war.
Speaker 2: And here's one of the stipulations on the Department's state
Speaker 2: website as of September two thousand and one. Statements approving
Speaker 2: a specific terrorist act and asserting that such acts should
Speaker 2: be repeated do not render an applicuanting ineligible for visa.
Speaker 2: It's just advocacy. It's just advocating terrorist actions, not actually
Speaker 2: committing them. Rules stipulated that mere membership in a terrorist
Speaker 2: organization there's no grounds for denying the visa. I read
Speaker 2: this quote a few years ago when we had a
Speaker 2: dinner for Vic Milione in Philadelphia. I'll read it again
Speaker 2: because I'm pretty sure most of you were not there.
Speaker 2: This is from the State Department visa application form, which
Speaker 2: as far as I know, is still extant. I haven't
Speaker 2: checked it recently, but it was still there. It was
Speaker 2: the last fall. This is one of the questions or
Speaker 2: series of questions. Do you seek to enter the United
Speaker 2: States to engage in export control violations, subversive or terrorist activities,
Speaker 2: or any other unlawful purpose? Are you a member or
Speaker 2: representative of a terrorist organization as currently designated by the
Speaker 2: Secretary of State? Have you ever participated in persecutions directed
Speaker 2: by the Nazi government of Germany? How old are these people? Uh?
Speaker 2: Or have you ever participated in genocide? I'm telling you yes, yes,
Speaker 2: I uh uh a terrorist and I was young, but
Speaker 2: I was in the Nazi thing and yeah some genocide. Yes.
Speaker 2: So then at the bottom of the form it says this, well,
Speaker 2: a yes answer does not automatically signified. Dave Barry said,
Speaker 2: I am not making it up. Not automatically signifying in
Speaker 2: eligibility for visa If you answered yes, you may be
Speaker 2: required to personally appear before a consular off So, like
Speaker 2: we need to talk about this, hello, I mean, what's
Speaker 2: going on here? Well, there's a lot more. And these
Speaker 2: are just a few examples of what the American Civil
Speaker 2: Liberties Union, Sater Teddy Kennedy and others of their eark
Speaker 2: have inflicted upon our nation. Now, I know side Budding
Speaker 2: here very interested and we all are in getting the history.
Speaker 2: We need to get the history of this stuff straight,
Speaker 2: and that's important. I'm for that. There's one thing that
Speaker 2: is at least as important as getting the history right,
Speaker 2: and that is recriminations. We were promised a lot of
Speaker 2: recriminations after the fall of Vietnam. Remember that, Don's I'm
Speaker 2: gonna be recriminations. Well we never got them. I never
Speaker 2: I don't remember the recriminations For that. I wanted those
Speaker 2: recriminations and I want them now. Yeah, that's one I'm
Speaker 2: going to think you about history because it's never too late,
Speaker 2: never too late or well based with recriminations. So to
Speaker 2: the scholars here are the young people in projection, or
Speaker 2: I would say, it's recrimination time. Let's get started now.
Speaker 1: I think maybe you can see where I'm going with this,
Speaker 1: it is high time we ask the question seriously whether
Speaker 1: Iran has penetrated our foreign policy establishment, either by direct
Speaker 1: bribery or corruption, or you can never rule out simply
Speaker 1: useful idiots, as Lenin used to call them in the
Speaker 1: communist days, people who sympathize with Iran, or people who
Speaker 1: simply have liberal soft headedness and think if we're nice
Speaker 1: enough to Iron, sooner or later, we'll come around and
Speaker 1: be nice to Israel. Instead, I think we have to
Speaker 1: ask some basic questions, like why did President Obama sign
Speaker 1: off on giving billions of dollars to Iran. It's not
Speaker 1: necessarily that he was an agent of Iran, but that
Speaker 1: he's soft headed or had people around him who convinced
Speaker 1: it was a good idea. In particular, there is the
Speaker 1: case of the Special Envoy to Iran under both Biden
Speaker 1: and Obama, Robert Malley, who negotiated a lot of the
Speaker 1: nuclear agreement from twenty fifteen and of course last year
Speaker 1: his security clearance was suspended and the proximate charge is
Speaker 1: that he mishandled classified material. But the investigation has been
Speaker 1: referred to the FBI, and in fact the State Department
Speaker 1: and the White House refused or declined to inform Congress
Speaker 1: that Mallei security clearance had been suspended.
Speaker 2: And if we.
Speaker 1: Still had a committee on un American Activities or a
Speaker 1: committee on internal security the one Stan Evans mentioned had
Speaker 1: been abolished in the seventies, maybe we could hold some
Speaker 1: hearings into not only Malli, but other people in the
Speaker 1: State Department. What kind of contacts have you had with Iranians,
Speaker 1: what have your cultural connections been, and so.
Speaker 2: Forth and so on.
Speaker 1: We know that Iran has been quietly and through various channels,
Speaker 1: fundling money to students for justice in Palestine, and these
Speaker 1: are sophisticated people, and I think it's not at all
Speaker 1: beyond the pale to say there needs to be a
Speaker 1: serious look at the patient way Iran has tried to
Speaker 1: make inroads with American cultural and political institutions, and indeed
Speaker 1: even in our government, as Stan put it, we learn,
Speaker 1: if you look look seriously at the history of it,
Speaker 1: that we had a lot of agents of a hostile
Speaker 1: foreign power infiltrating our government back in the forties and
Speaker 1: fifties and maybe later. And I think now we need
Speaker 1: to ask the question, are we facing the problem of
Speaker 1: agents of a hostile foreign power, namely Iran, succeeding and
Speaker 1: affecting American foreign policy. Right now, people call it McCarthyism.
Speaker 2: I don't care.
Speaker 1: I'm tired of that. It's kind of like the racism charge.
Speaker 1: It's lost its power to deflect us from what ought
Speaker 1: to be done. And the last thing I'll say is,
Speaker 1: it would be a great thing if President Trump and
Speaker 1: Republican Congress proposed bringing back the House and Senate committees
Speaker 1: on internal security as a part of the new administration
Speaker 1: next year. You know, the Heritage Foundation will it published
Speaker 1: the first Mandate for Leadership in nineteen eighty, which is
Speaker 1: the precursor, of course, for Project twenty twenty five that
Speaker 1: has liberals so upset today, did in fact propose bringing
Speaker 1: back the House and Senate committees on internal security, but
Speaker 1: the Rega administration and the Republican Senate never acted on
Speaker 1: the idea, although they did start some committees on terrorism,
Speaker 1: which is a halfway house. But still, maybe we should
Speaker 1: bring back those committees entirely another thing to drive the
Speaker 1: left out of their mind and cause them to riot.
Speaker 2: In the streets.
Speaker 1: But I don't care anymore either, So anyway, that's it
Speaker 1: for this special edition of the power Line Podcasts. Enjoy
Speaker 1: hearing your comments. I'm remissed by the way and saying
Speaker 1: do go on your podcast source, whether it's iTunes or elsewhere,
Speaker 1: and give us a five star review. And we'll be
Speaker 1: back this weekend with another regular edition of the.
Speaker 2: Three Whiskey Happy Hour.
Speaker 1: But we're going to get out today with a few
Speaker 1: bars from one of Stan Evans's favorite tunes that, of
Speaker 1: course is quite topical. It's Elvis Presley's famous tune suspicious minds,
Speaker 1: Bye bye everybody. We caught it a trap.
Speaker 2: I can't walk out be caught on too, Mut's paving.
Speaker 2: Why can't you see what you do to me? When
Speaker 2: you don't believe the world? I see?
Speaker 1: We can't go on together.
Speaker 2: We're suspicious
Speaker 1: Ricochet join the conversation.